Pokie, in general your logic seems to be "I'm going to do something slightly -ev now (compared to check, obviously it's +ev compared to open folding) to avoid making a super -ev play later. In the short term that may be fine, but the better solution is to just not make the super -ev play later. I think ch/c and ch/f are both very close but both are by far superior to bet. It's a pretty classic wa/wb spot and you're not getting much value if you bet.

I think this is irrelevant, since isn't this usually the case when we cbet a missed flop? Say we have Q9s and the board is T,6,3 rainbow, then we may choose to bet here even though our opponent will likely only call with a better hand than Q-high.

That is why I am advocating that we ignore the showdown value and just stick out a normal cbet and that is our only post-flop play in the hand. If the villain calls us with KQs, and the turn and river check through, then great, we actually won the pot, but after we are called we shut down obviously.

I think:

cbet/shutdown > check/fold > check/call

In a 3bet pot, any calling mistakes we make are magnified due to the larger pot built pre-flop.

Am I right in thinking that you prefer:

check/call > cbet/shutdown > check/fold

I understand that we are getting little value in betting, but that is because I am not viewing our cbet as a value bet, I am viewing it as a stab to take down the pot by maintaining our pre-flop initiative and repping AA/AK etc, but whenever we are called we are done with the hand.

When we cbet a whiffed flop, we are not value betting are we. Not every bet we make is supposed to be a value bet, whereas you seem to think that because we have a pair in this case, and hence SOME showdown value, that we are automatically looking to value bet this pair if we do bet, whereas I am not looking at our bet from that perspective at all, I am trying to ignore our showdown value completely as a direct result of the fact that it's so difficult for us to get any value from worse, as well as being OOP and still three streets away from a showdown.

No, i am not considering cbetting an option. Rember that when he has Ax he is going to call u if u bet, and maybe bet and called from u if u decide to xc. What's the difference? The difference is that when u cbet u always shut down and prolly lose the pot, when u xc u might still be good vs. bluffs. I am not advocating that u have to xc 3 streets. The pot is never going to be huge without any reason. Also if he ever decides to float IP he is going to crush u if u cbet/shut down. I am not even sure that cbetting makes it simplier. You arr just avoiding to make decisions later on, and afraid of giving up the lead and being bluffed

The difference with the Q9 hand u are bringin up, is that u can make him fold better hands, it is a bluff. He might fold Ax, Kx, small PPs. This is where i think u are missing the point. It is not the hand per se, is probably a wrong logic that u might carry on in other spots as well.

Heres my thoughts. First off when I 3bet and get this board im likely cbetting it 100% of the time with all my range. Im not bothered that I only get called by better because this wont always be the case(will get to that later), theres dead money in the pot and I want it.

Again from my point of view if I am the guy that called the 3bet then I have either done it because the villain has a wide range or I have flatted a monster for some reason but when I see this board I expect the villain to cbet it 100% of the time and I will be calling the cbet 100% of the time with just about all my holdings because I expect him to play pretty honest on the turn.

Again when I get this board and a villain check/calls against me what range do I put him on? He either has a monster or he has a hand like KK/QQ/JJ that is scared of the Ace and given there are more combos of those than there are of monsters im very happy to barrel off knowing its very rare for the 3bettor to have a big hand that can stand heat.

In my eyes its basically free money to a decent hand reader when we decide to check/call. Obviously there I make a big assumption that the villain is a good hand reader and so much of what goes on here will be villain dependent.

Lol, i am not like others who can explain in 2 lines...and Mart, u know I. Am a noob, but this is what I get on this spot

Just assuming V's flatting range pre isnt insanely wide or tight.

Case 1 (V floats 100% of the time): here is where cbetting KK is really bad, bc u give villain the chance to take really advantage of position. Betting also makes the pot larger in a spot when u dont want it to be large. U dont minimize ur losses when you are behind, and you are not getting much value (assuming V floats to take the pot at some point). Just bc vbetting here is very hard. And we are xf turns a lot, as you say.
if V floats that much then we should cbet thinly for value (but i dont think here anyone is saying we are cbetting KK for value with no reads), and xc'ing lots of turns to let him stab. other lines are possible as well i guess.

Case 2 (V bets 100% when checked to): V is assuming we always play straightforwardly, which vs. A good player shouldnt be the case. we cant only play bet or xf. Anyway if V bets 100% of the times we should check a ton and call down with any value-sdv hand, xr some semibluffs. Just bc his bluffing range is going to be wider then his calling range there is no reason to really vbet, esp if V will fold a lot vs a cbet. So we can own him by valuecalling or rebluffing some hands.

If you (as villain) are doing one thing or the other 100% of the times it becomes really exploitable even oop imho. You can still do it when 3bettor is bad and just playing his cards and not willing to go to SD without the nuts.
But our goal is not to be a weak tight player, right?
Nor to be just betting to make things easier and not let villain exploit us, just bc if villain tries to do the things u say, he is the one who is going to be exploited.

I think it is like the rookie mistake of 3betting let's say AQ vs. a tight guy with high foldv3b. Yes strong hand, and villain will fold a lot, you dont have to play postflop and it is easier and +EV. But that is turning your hand into a bluff, and why not do that with 72o turning trash into a +EV hand? And shift AQ in your flatting range (keeping it still +EV)?
I think at the end of the day, it all comes down to whether we are betting for value or as a bluff. Collecting dead money will be a side effect of either one of them.

If this is actually the case this still makes a bet bad we should just ch/c 3 streets (assuming your preflop range is wide enough that we beat 50%+ of your hands). But I don't believe you always bet 3 here and I know for a fact the average micro full ring reg doesn't.

Of course if you know someone is going to bluff a lot then you can probably check/call all the way if you like but not many people will have a ton of reads on players in 3bet pots and even when they do joe average will probably revert to the face value of his cards as some point imo.

However if i know some one is going to play their hands pretty face up(I would say this is the majority of regs at the micros) then their range is easy to work out when they check this flop. Sometimes im going to run in to a monster but most of the time we fold out KK/QQ etc with a turn or river bet because although most regs might call the flop and possibly the turn they will fold the river a high % of the time.

Against a non thinking reg you could probably check/call and expect them to play the rest of the hand pretty honest ie. betting the turn when they have an ace or checking down when they havnt.

For all you guys saying to bet here, did you take into account the villains preflop raise percentage increases to 14 on the button?

The problem with check/call on the flop is it looks a bit weird that we are checking to the villain when we would normally bet this type of board with our air and also our AA/AK/AQ/QQ, so checking and then calling kind of makes our hand look like a showdown one.

The other problem with check/call is that we can't call if the villain bets the turn in my opinion, and if the turn goes check/check and then we check the river and the villain bets, can we ever call this bet? I would expect the villain to take this kind of line mainly with weaker Aces, or when the river card has improved him to a set or something if he was betting the flop with 88 etc.

I don't really like this guessing game on the river when we only hold second pair and are facing a 25bb to 35bb bet on the end in a 3bet pot where the villain's range is normally stronger since he called a reraise pre-flop and so would have folded most of his trashy stuff before the flop.

If we can't call a turn and/or river bet then it's not a guessing game...

So we're check/calling the flop just in the hope that the villain doesn't bet again? That sounds profitable...

Check/calling just puts us in a silly, tough situation most of the time with this hand and this board texture, in my opinion.

You just said we couldn't profitably call the turn. Why is it a hard spot if you already know the answer to how to play the spot?

not sure how thread has gone on for this long; seems like a pretty trivial c/f spot. if we knew more about villain's tendencies then c/c is fine too, but as stated by zac betting is pretty much the worst thing you can do here.

Not sure if your serious? Check/fold better than bet? So we lose less in the long run check/folding than we do betting. I very highly doubt that.